The Chinese Nationalist Party (KMT) and the People First Party (PFP) controlled legislature has blocked the arms procurement bill 30 times and stopped Taiwan from improving its national defense. This has led to a growing military imbalance between China and Taiwan. Now the pan-blue camp plans to use its legislative majority to force through a bill promoting cross-strait peace (海峽兩岸和平促進法). Passing the PFP version of this bill would bring political chaos as well as major changes in security. It could place Taiwan in a dangerous situation; the legislature must not pass it.
Although this short bill only has 14 articles, it could cause massive harm to Taiwan. There are five reasons why we oppose it. First, it advocates making the "five noes" and the "1992 consensus" its premises. Although the five noes were proposed by President Chen Shui-bian (陳水扁) in his inaugural speech, one cannot leave out the fact that they are based on China's ending its military threat against Taiwan. That premise has never existed, so bringing up the five noes only blurs the focus. The term "1992 consensus" was created by KMT officials, and has never existed. The 1992 meeting in Hong Kong had a "1992 spirit," which was to put aside disagreements and focus on practical problem-solving.
Second, confirming the "one China principle" and the "1992 consensus" by passing the cross-strait peace promotion bill tells the world that Taiwan is part of China, and is responding to Beijing's "Anti-Secession" Law. This would deprive Taiwan of strategic advantages when negotiating with China and give Beijing grounds for annexing the nation. Such a defeatist bill strengthens China and weakens Taiwan.
Third, it stipulates that the legislature establish a cross-strait peace committee in proportion to the legislative seats each party holds in the legislature, and that the committee signs a cross-strait peace accord, a direct links agreement, an agreement protecting the benefits of Taiwanese businesspeople in China, and creates cross-strait non-military and free trade zones.
Such an organization would infringe on the rights of the president to sign treaties and the rights of the Mainland Affairs Council (MAC) to negotiate with China. Such a committee would infringe on the constitutional duties and rights of the president, and it would allow the legislative branch to intervene in the operations of the executive branch. That would blur the separation between the two branches and lead to constitutional controversies.
Fourth, according to a survey released by the MAC on Sept. 9, 85 percent of respondents prefer to maintain the status quo, while 88 percent want the government to establish a framework for peaceful cross-strait exchanges. Although the legislature has the legislative power, mainstream public opinion opposes such a bill. If the pan-blue camp forces its passage, they will go against the will of the general public.
Fifth, China's "Anti-Secession" Law stresses that Beijing does not forego "non-peaceful means and other necessary measures" if Taiwan "moves toward" independence. But the pan-blue camp has ignored such constant legal and military threats, and repeatedly blocked the arms procurement plan, pushing for the draft bill to promote cross-strait peace. It's sending out the wrong message, leading the US to doubt Taiwan's determination to defend itself, and the international community to believe that Taiwan isn't under military threat from China. It weakens psychological and national defenses, while increasing the cross-strait military imbalance.
The slightest change in cross-strait policy affects the overall situation. Such changes must therefore conform to mainstream opinion, constitutional law, the current political situation and command a consensus between government and opposition parties. The cross-strait peace promotion bill does not meet any of these conditions. If the pan-blue camp insists on forcing its passage, it may become a war-promoting bill that might instead cause a domestic political battle or even a cross-strait war.
Saudi Arabian largesse is flooding Egypt’s cultural scene, but the reception is mixed. Some welcome new “cooperation” between two regional powerhouses, while others fear a hostile takeover by Riyadh. In Cairo, historically the cultural capital of the Arab world, Egyptian Minister of Culture Nevine al-Kilany recently hosted Saudi Arabian General Entertainment Authority chairman Turki al-Sheikh. The deep-pocketed al-Sheikh has emerged as a Medici-like patron for Egypt’s cultural elite, courted by Cairo’s top talent to produce a slew of forthcoming films. A new three-way agreement between al-Sheikh, Kilany and United Media Services — a multi-media conglomerate linked to state intelligence that owns much of
The US and other countries should take concrete steps to confront the threats from Beijing to avoid war, US Representative Mario Diaz-Balart said in an interview with Voice of America on March 13. The US should use “every diplomatic economic tool at our disposal to treat China as what it is... to avoid war,” Diaz-Balart said. Giving an example of what the US could do, he said that it has to be more aggressive in its military sales to Taiwan. Actions by cross-party US lawmakers in the past few years such as meeting with Taiwanese officials in Washington and Taipei, and
The Republic of China (ROC) on Taiwan has no official diplomatic allies in the EU. With the exception of the Vatican, it has no official allies in Europe at all. This does not prevent the ROC — Taiwan — from having close relations with EU member states and other European countries. The exact nature of the relationship does bear revisiting, if only to clarify what is a very complicated and sensitive idea, the details of which leave considerable room for misunderstanding, misrepresentation and disagreement. Only this week, President Tsai Ing-wen (蔡英文) received members of the European Parliament’s Delegation for Relations
Denmark’s “one China” policy more and more resembles Beijing’s “one China” principle. At least, this is how things appear. In recent interactions with the Danish state, such as applying for residency permits, a Taiwanese’s nationality would be listed as “China.” That designation occurs for a Taiwanese student coming to Denmark or a Danish citizen arriving in Denmark with, for example, their Taiwanese partner. Details of this were published on Sunday in an article in the Danish daily Berlingske written by Alexander Sjoberg and Tobias Reinwald. The pretext for this new practice is that Denmark does not recognize Taiwan as a state under